Er, we're getting out of hand with this thread, but I just gotta explain myself again.
>yes, in some respects. but that rob didn't have a clue as to what it could
>posibly mean to say what he said was a problem.
I had a clue, just didn't think it was a problem in the context, that's all. The point was about formal logic, as I recall.
>it is a problem to say
>that a person who menstruates and gives birth is NOT a man. notice that
>rob did not say that a person who menstruates and gives birth is a woman.
>he could very easily have said that. why not?
Actually, I have made the point concerning identification by way of exclusive normalisation many times myself, Kelley. Amongst other things, Miles had, quite correctly, pointed out that women aren't always giving birth or menstruating. Well, they're usually not, of course. So, I thought he was implying, these two markers are pretty problematic sex tags. Fair enough, responded I, but not when they are in train. Meaning:
men never give birth or menstruate women sometimes give birth or menstruate Ergo: Birthgivers and menstruators are women and not men;
and
A non-birthgiver/non-menstruator might be either a woman or a man.
So it was all (offensively basic) A/not-A stuff. From which I don't reckon you can infer I didn't have a clue.
Cheers, Rob.